Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Postal Services Bill [HL].


Postal Services Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may help my noble friend on two points. On the issue of the Secretary of State having a section of the RMPP fund, I stress that that is a contingency provision if it is not possible to set up in the time available a separate scheme, which is the objective we seek. It is only if that does not come about that a section of the RMPP for accrued rights would be the responsibility of the Government. The PPF would require a qualifying insolvency from the sponsoring employer before it kicked in. At the moment the PPF is funded partly by a levy on schemes, partly by the assets that it takes in from schemes and partly by the investment return that it gets on them. It is not directly funded by employers, although some employers top up the contributions that they make to schemes to enable the levy to be paid. I hope that helps my noble friend.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c1039 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Contracts Industrial relations Finance Liability EU law Insolvency Government assistance Government shareholding Private sector Pensions Partnerships Post offices Pension funds Pension Protection Fund Postal services Ofcom Postal Services Commission Post Office Modernisation Regulation Voting rights Technology Royal Mail TNT
Legislation
Postal Services Bill (HL) 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk